Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32090090›Full record

ReviewBioMed research international2020

Sultan Z Alasmari

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioMed research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Cell-Free DNA-Based Theranostics for Inflammatory Disorders.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Moonlighting chromatin: when DNA escapes nuclear control.Cell death and differentiation · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Retention ofACS infectious diseases · 2021
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Multiple Origins of Extracellular DNA Traps.Frontiers in immunology · 2021
    Review
  19. Immunologic mechanism of fungal keratitis.International journal of ophthalmology · 2021
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sultan Z AlasmariClinical Laboratory Sciences, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, King Khalid University, Abha 62529, Asir Region, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2485-0686

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neutrophils comprise the first line of innate immune defense during a host-pathogen interaction. They attack microorganisms directly through three different methods, of which, phagocytosis and degranulation have been known and well-studied for decades. The formation of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) is the third and unique method, which was unveiled in 2004. Since then, many studies on NETs have been carried out. However, only few have successfully demonstrated the activity of NETs

Indexed as

AnimalsExtracellular TrapsHumansModels, BiologicalMolecular Imaging

Identifiers

PMID32090090
PMCPMC7015184

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.